- 5 -
Respondent disallowed all of the unreimbursed employee
business expenses on the basis that petitioner was not away from
her tax home when she incurred the expenses.
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace. New Colonial
Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). Petitioners bear
the burden to prove that respondent's determination is incorrect.
Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Section 262 specifically disallows the deduction of personal
living expenses. However, section 162(a)(2) permits a deduction
for traveling expenses (including meals and lodging) incurred
while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business. To
qualify for this deduction, three conditions must be satisfied:
(1) The expense must be a reasonable and necessary traveling
expense; (2) the expense must be incurred while away from home;
and (3) the expense must be incurred in pursuit of business.
Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465, 470 (1946). The
determination of whether these conditions have been met is a
question of fact. Commissioner v. Flowers, supra at 470.
This Court has held that a taxpayer's home for purposes of
section 162(a)(2) is the vicinity of the taxpayer's principal
place of employment and not where his or her personal residence
may be located. Mitchell v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 578, 581
(1980); Kroll v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 557, 561-562 (1968). An
exception exists when a taxpayer accepts employment away from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011